Order of the Stick

The Core Media Forum
1

I’m sure many of you here are familiar with this. I myself had heard of it months ago, but it was only a few weeks ago that I started reading it. Hey, there’s tons of webcomics out there, and most aren’t that good. But a few, like OOTS, really stand out.

For those not in the know, Order Of The Stick is a webcomic drawn in stick-figure style, that parodies the conventions of the Dungeons and Dragons game. At first it was your typical gag strip, without much story beyond the characters ( who are aware they’re cartoon characters) complaining about how the game’s rules made little sense. Like many webcomics, over time it has grown into a quite interesting, serious fantasy epic: A Lich (undead sorcerer) named Xykon wants to gain access to one of the legendary Magic Gates (beyond which lies The Snarl, a being who can kill gods, and who has, in fact, DESTROYED the world once already!) and has gone as far as conquering a city with a monster army to do it! The characters have found themselves arguing moral values seriously (is it OK for heroes to kill monsters and take their treasure? Are goblins justified to be evil because of such persecution? Even gasp is it OK to sell your soul to save your loved ones (and the world?) (That last one is being handled in a quite original way, too!)

While I enjoy the story, the humor, the D&D references and even (at times) the art, I do have a few problems with the comic. The first is: while the story has certainly turned serious -even dark in spots- it is still presented as a cartoon where the characters can do things like complain about the story, step out of the panels or go back and check previous issues of the webcomic! It’s kind of hard to suspend disbelief when, for all you know, the whole thing could be solved with a silly gag. One way I’ve gotten around this is by assuming that the story and the comic are separate- that is, that the Order of the Stick story is taking place in a “real” fantasy world, with no Fourth Wall gags or Meta references, and what we see in the webcomics is just the parody version, ala Mystery Science Theater 3000. Heck, if the author wished, he could published an adaptation of OOTS with real art and no gags and it would STILL sell very well- it is that good!

The other problem I have can be summed in one word: Belkar. That’s the team’s Halfling Ranger, who happens to be EVIL. Back when the series was just a gag, you laughed at the idea (it was probably a reference to the fact that, in D&D, you CAN play evil characters, even in a nonevil party of “heroes”!) and he was used mostly to make mean-spirited jokes, or to be the target of abusive pranks (the party’s mage, Vaarsuvius, in particular loves making him blow up.) However, as the story became more serious, his presence in the party became more problematic. He’s killed innocents, wants to kill certain party members, it has been proven (with magic) that he wouldn’t mind killing them all if he had to, and while the others have undergone (or are undergoing) some growth as characters, he not only refuses to change, he’s currently pretending he has changed so the others won’t drive him off the party (and thus deny him more chances to kill!) It has come to the point even the other characters are starting to wonder WHY they keep him around (the given answer is “because he’d be more dangerous without us watching over him”- which would make sense, in a setting where KILLING OFF YOUR ENEMIES wasn’t an option, but in OOTS it definitely is.) Belkar has, in fact, been prophesied to die soon, but given that death isn’t as permanent in OOTS as it is the real world (Raise Dead spells aren’t uncommon, as in the game) that might not solve the problem. Besides, I’m sure the author likes him too much to lose him- Belkar allows him to get away with remarks none of the other characters would make. But now, what used to be funny acts from him strike me as cruel and disturbing. It has come to the point that I’ve actually STOPPED READING BELKAR’S DIALOGUE! Yes, seriously. I know it sounds silly, and I’ve never done that before- but that’s how much I loathe the character.

I also had a most annoying incident recently when I posted my problems with the strip on its “It Just Bugs Me” page in TVTropes.Com -which is there basically for people to rant- and somebody else got mad at me for my POV, to the point we almost ended up flaming each other! We ended up agreeing to disagree -or more correctly, I simply decided to stop arguing with whoever that was. The whole argument has since been removed from the page.

Anyway: despite my problems with OOTS, I still find it to be one of the best fantasy strips I’ve ever read- the characterization is great, the use of the rules and mythology of D&D is incredibly clever (though you might need to be familiar with the game to get it) and yes, IT IS FUNNY. I recommend it, and wouldn’t mind hearing other people’s opinions on it (as long as you don’t get personal, natch! :wink: )

You can check out the strip here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0651.html

2

If I may pick one nit: The Oracle DID predict that Belkar’s eventual demise would be permanent, if you recall.

But yeah. OotS is great. What started off as a gag strip has evolved into something that could only be called epic, and it still retains its sense of humor.

3

The Oracle DID predict that Belkar’s eventual demise would be permanent, if you recall.

Right, the same way he predicted that Belkar would cause the death of a party member… except it turned out that he didn’t intentionally kill him (Roy) so much as facilitate his (failed) attack on Xykon. That’s the kind of Oracle we’re dealing with, so whether Belkar’s death will be permanent remains to be seen.

4

I found OotS late last year and went on an archive binge. Easily one of the funniest comics out there, and with a great story.

I dunno, I still like Belkar. Considering I enjoy Richard from Looking for Group, who’s done much more horrible things (played for laughs) I don’t have a problem with it. Now Miko… there’s someone who I really hated (though that was intentional). One of the most effective and scary antagonists I’ve ever seen, precisely because she didn’t see herself as one.

5

Order of the Stick is less of a comic and more of a giant wall of text with some nondescript pictures behind it.

6

The art is actually surprisingly good, especially the expressions. Once you get used to it, you start appreciating the freedom it offers.

7

I also went on a week-long OotS Archive Binge- maybe that’s why I can’t stand Belkar; he’s much easier to take in separate installments, but when you see his entire history in one sitting, he’s much more annoying .

Miko was definitely created to represent the worst aspects of The Paladin class, since misplaying them as ruthless is one of the biggest mistakes D&D players commit. I disliked her too, but I still sort of understood where she was coming from, especially given all the grief Belkar gave her- even going so far as trying to trick her into killing him, just to cause her to lose her palandinhood! Tell me THAT’S not twisted! Also, her impulsively killing off Lord Shojo, based on little evidence, appointing herself Judge, Jury and Executioner, and DESPITE THE NEXT-IN-LINE RULER BEING RIGHT THERE, struck me as very forced, storywise. And of course, she died without getting the chance to redeem herself. I swear, the author can get really sadistic sometimes. (Of course, given how death works in the strip, she might yet return.)

And yeah, OotS definitely looks better than most other stick-figure comics I’ve seen. There’s been some pretty clever tricks, art-wise. Still, I can’t help but feel that the style is at least a partial cop-out, since it’s much easier to draw a weekly strip that way. There’s plenty of OotS fanart featuring more “realistic” takes on the characters floating around the net, anyway.

8

Belkar is the spirit of D&D incarnate.

9

Yeah, one of the criticisms of D&D is that many of its campaigns are all about killing monsters and taking their treasure. OotS has always lampshaded this. However, one thing that apparently nobody seems to be aware of is that, at least in the older versions of D&D, monsters could NOT change their alignment. Goblins, for example, are born evil, and unlike a PC, cannot change alignment through their deeds. (This was explained as being the influence of the Outer Planes on the Material Plane.) Thus, you might as well kill an entire goblin village, since they would never stop being a menace, even to each other. And you might as well take their stuff along the way.

This, however, doesn’t seem to apply to OotS, where even the cockroaches can talk, and even the Monster in the Dark seems to be changing his disposition. This makes the whole morality of the heroes questionable, and the characters themselves are beginning to doubt it. This is why kill-happy characters like Belkar bother me, and why I find the constant switching between cartoony humor and serious story disturbing. I appreciate the author exploring these themes, but dammit, stick to one style of storytelling!!

10

Belkar is supposed to bother you, and nothing says an author needs to stick to one style, especially when you have a comic that’s over 600 pages long. Hell, have you ever watched Fullmetal Alchemist? You’ve got cosmic horror and slapstick right next to each other. If it does both of them well, I find it to be more exciting and interesting than if they’d have concentrated on one or the other. Comedy without seriousness is fluffy, and super-serious shows are depressing and/or boring.

11

And the person the oracle predicted would die by belkar’s hand was himself, not Roy. The oracle was just trying to give Belkar a chance to defy the prophecy with some cop out “Well technically you killed Roy” story.

12

Belkar is supposed to bother you,

To the point I won’t even read his dialogue anymore? I hope that’s not the intention.

and nothing says an author needs to stick to one style, especially when you have a comic that’s over 600 pages long. Hell, have you ever watched Fullmetal Alchemist? You’ve got cosmic horror and slapstick right next to each other. If it does both of them well, I find it to be more exciting and interesting than if they’d have concentrated on one or the other. Comedy without seriousness is fluffy, and super-serious shows are depressing and/or boring.

Didn’t I make that point above? But in anycase: what bothers me is not to have both humor and tragedy in the same story; that happens in real life as well. It’s the switch in realism that drives me nuts. For example: right now, we’re going into Vaarsuvius’s “damnation” plotline; that’s pretty serious, and even disturbing when we see him use a Necromantic spell to KILL ALL THE DESCENDANTS AND RELATIVES of the Black Dragon who tried to kill his family; Then, just a few strips later, when they find themselves without the diamonds needed to resurrect Roy, what do they do? Have Haley CLIMB OUT OF THE PANEL AND GET THE DIAMOND SHE WAS HOLDING IN THE CHARACTER PAGE! :thud: I know it’s supposed to be funny, but HOW do you explain that in-story?? My fear is that the whole epic, after a LOT of posturing, might be resolved by a similar gag: "Hey Bad Guys, the Author called and said you have to lose. " “Oh, OK then.”
:no2:

And the person the oracle predicted would die by belkar’s hand was himself, not Roy.

The Question was: “will I cause the Death of the one of the following people: (mentions Roy and other characters)?” and the answer was just “Yes.” Belkar did not name himself in the question.

The oracle was just trying to give Belkar a chance to defy the prophecy with some cop out “Well technically you killed Roy” story.
I reeeeally doubt it; the oracle HATES Belkar -rightly so, since he knew Belkar was going to kill him- and even went so far as to arrange things to have his death activate Belkar’s Mark of Justice punishment. I’m pretty sure he will be very happy when Belkar bites it.

Speaking of the Mark of Justice, the one hope I have about Belkar ever improving is that pretending to be good (as suggested by his hallucination of Lord Shojo) WILL cause him to really change, and he himself might be surprised by his feelings, ala Earl in “My Name is Earl”. After all, given that Shojo was a shrewd manipulator (but a good person) I see his ghost manipulating Belkar by appealing to his own bloodlust in order to get him to improve as a person. I’m not betting money on it, though.

13

No, he killed the Oracle. That was what the prophecy was, and why the oracle tried to get belkar to defy it since, even though he had the resurrection scheduled, I’m pretty sure dying sucks. Meh… this is why I hate pronouns.

14

To the point I won’t even read his dialogue anymore? I hope that’s not the intention.

No, not to the point where you don’t read the dialogue, but maybe you’re just not getting the joke, or your sense of humor doesn’t jive with the author’s (and mine). I certainly don’t have the problems you do.

I know it’s supposed to be funny, but HOW do you explain that in-story??

I think your roots as comic-book fan are showing. 8p See, I never got as bothered about “canon” and “in-story explanations” as comic-book people seem to be. Part of OotS’s charm is its breaking the fourth wall, but it’s very difficult to do that and still be serious. So essentially what you’re saying is you like the fact that they break the fourth wall, and you don’t mind that they become serious, but you do mind that they suddenly stop breaking the fourth wall. None of that adds up. The humor of OotS is very much predicated on that fourth-wall breaking, so if you admit they’re allowed to change moods, then they should be allowed to insert that stuff wherever they like.

My fear is that the whole epic, after a LOT of posturing, might be resolved by a similar gag: "Hey Bad Guys, the Author called and said you have to lose. " “Oh, OK then.”

There’s a major difference between humor and cop-out. The diamond is an extremely minor piece of story, which is only in there because the actual D&D spell requires it. The author has never, to my recollection, used his fourth-wall-breaking to actually influence the plot in any major way, unless you count Elan’s abilities, which have more to do with being Genre Savvy than that.

15

No, not to the point where you don’t read the dialogue, but maybe you’re just not getting the joke, or your sense of humor doesn’t jive with the author’s (and mine). I certainly don’t have the problems you do.

Oh, I get the joke alright. I just don’t find it funny. Not that I mind if other people enjoy it- what I’m saying here is that I personally don’t like it, and explaining why. Which I have a right to express, just like everybody else. It should be noted however, that I’m FAR from the only person who hates Belkar; so my points aren’t just some quirks of mine; they’re valid. It’s up to the author to decide if he cares enough to deal with them, though.

I think your roots as comic-book fan are showing. 8p See, I never got as bothered about “canon” and “in-story explanations” as comic-book people seem to be.
C’mon, Cid, that is hardly just a comic book thing. Ever seen Star Trek or Star Wars fan argue? :wink: Heck, even Final Fantasy, whose series WERE supposed not to have any intercontinuity, has ended having flame wars between fans over the silliest details. Black kettles and all that. :stuck_out_tongue:

There’s a major difference between humor and cop-out. The diamond is an extremely minor piece of story, which is only in there because the actual D&D spell requires it. The author has never, to my recollection, used his fourth-wall-breaking to actually influence the plot in any major way, unless you count Elan’s abilities, which have more to do with being Genre Savvy than that.

I disagree; Roy’s resurrection IS a major plot point, and since the story operates on “D&D Universe” rules, the diamond WAS important, and the author’s solving of it by breaking the 4th wall WAS a cop-out, though I agree it was the first I’ve seen that really mattered. Of course, we can handwave this away- as I mentioned above (does anyone bother to read my basic comments?) I deal with OotS by separating the strip (with all its meta-jokes) from the story in my mind. I do not demand that anybody else do the same… but when I start having problems doing even that, I think it’s a sign that the author (who is, you know, just human) fumbled. I can assume that V got another diamond from the plane of Earth (as he suggested) instead; or that this entire strip didn’t happen. But as a reader, I’m not the one who is supposed to come up with excuses, the author is. And if it happens too often, it affects my enjoyment of it, and I’m sure, many other readers as well. We’ll see…

16

Black kettles and all that. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’ve never hung around Star Wars/Star Trek fans, but I have read some of your comic book reviews, so you can’t blame me for saying what I know. 8p And it’s far less common amongst Final Fantasy fans (maybe one in ten thousand are that far-out to discuss continuity).

Anyway, you know what this screams to me?

Stop Having Fun Guys.

Seriously. It’s a webcomic that’s profoundly irreverent and still manages to have a serious, coherent story. If little things like that bug you that much, then yeah, you’re probably reading the wrong thing.

As for Belkar, have you ever read Looking for Group? It’ll probably give you an aneurysm. If that sort of humor isn’t up your alley, again, it’s not up your alley

17

It should be noted that the silly Deus Ex Character-Page gag is only in response to the existing Deus Ex Machina of the diamonds getting stolen. They had them, it wasn’t a problem that was solved by breaking the fourth, it was a problem that was created then solved again within a single strip to make V’s powers seem less useful.

As for the other complaint, I find Belkar an interesting, even crucial, part of the comic’s complex moral scheme. Most of the members of the OotS went around killing sentient creatures, as Redcloak eloquently explains, who had friends, families, aspirations and dreams, all because they gained experience and money, or got closer to other selfish goals, like vengeance. This is absolutely no different to the manner in which Belkar treats just about anything. The difference, theoretically, is that all of those goblins and such are “evil,” a line whose blurriness is exemplified by Miko’s decisions and actions.
Additionally, Belkar is a powerful fighting force (specifically, a sexy shoeless god of war), and his immense power is mostly put towards to cause of saving the world from destruction, a cause he sees in more utilitarian terms than others. In the interest of saving the world, Celia won’t kill, some won’t kill humans who aren’t fighting, and Belkar will kill anyone who will advance the goal. His monstrosity could be viewed as nothing more than a more pragmatic, egalitarian equivalent of what all the good characters are doing. There exists the possibility that his “evil” is merely a hypocritical judgment by the arbitrarily self-righteous, the same way all of the OotS was evil, in Miko’s eyes.

18

Cid: I don’t see how “Stop Having Fun Guys” applies here: I’m not claiming to be an expert on OotS (not more than anybody who has read the full strip, anyway) I’m not demanding anybody (much less the author) change his ways to please me, I’m not bothered by the fact other people like what I don’t, and I sure as heck am not ranting illogically. I’m simply explaining which parts of the series bother me, why they bother me, and what I’d wish the author would do so I could enjoy the series more fully. Same thing as everybody else does online.

…Although you make me realize something: one of the causes of flaming over things like this, is due to the fact that posters take things way too personally- as if just disagreeing with your views were a personal insult, or a threat to the series you like. Not you, mind, but people like the one I had the argument over at the OotS page on TVTropes. Ideally, conversations online should be like conversations in person- most of us do not give lip to strangers, if only not to sound like idiots ourselves. I guess being online does get some of us too involved.

Anyway: how about commenting instead on the things we agree- like the plot, art, characterization, and most of the other stuff I mentioned above? There ARE reasons I still follow OotS despite Belkar, you know.

And no, I don’t think I would like Looking for Group much either. I already decided that from reading its TV Tropes page; just as I discovered OotS thanks to it. It’s a great site to learn about Webcomics (and other stuff).

Arac: You are right, the author is questioning RPG morality. Thing is, that was NOT how things were at the start- Belkar’s behavior (and the other heroes’) didn’t matter because it was a self-referential comedy, more Simpsons than Lord of the Rings. The author himself has admitted that he has veered far from his original concept. I do not mind that, as I said above such a change is typical of long-lasting comics; but if you’re changing genres, you should be honest about it, and not jump back to the sillier stuff right in the middle of a serious storyline; that’s annoying, and not just to me, but a lot of other people as well.

19

However, if evil is out of limits then being good has no moral value (not taking into account Arac’s valid points). Even if goblins are always bad it doesn’t follow that killing them is the answer (should they opt for a Mordekainen’s All-Enclosing Wall of Good Guys? Start talking bad races and it immediately evokes Hitler-talk). Besides, Belkar serves as a successful foil to the “good” characters of the party (is the rogue better than the dwarf etc.) and is the natural end to the use of power for convenience (which the rest of the party isn’t free from). I mean, if your party regularly slaughters sentient creatures with their own communal structures why is using the same on your own so much worse?

20

I stand over my point in the other thread that by ignoring Belkor’s dialogue, you miss out on a vital part of the story the author is trying to tell. Arac pretty much summed up a lot what I’d like to say so whatever. You do have to remember that the real point of that strip with the diamond was to simply antagonise V further, in order to compel him to act rashly. As Arac said, the point of the strip wasn’t just the humour, that was intentional but a side effect of the story, not the story being a side effect of the humour.

I do understand hating a character though. I had real trouble reading some of the chapters in the Song of Ice and Fire series, simply because I hated the characters so much. not the ‘evil’ ones, particularly, but people like Sansa in the first book. God her short sightedness and intentional blindness was so damn frustrating. If I’m going to read those books again, I probably will skip some of those chapters. But I read them once, because I wanted to understand the story as best I could and, more importantly, how the author intended…well, at least as much as possible. I expect what I took out of the chapters whas somewhat different to what he put in. I feel you’re missing out on this by not even reading the lines once.